Talk:Godzilla (2014 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unsigned comment

Wow. Mind flip. Why is nobody jumping on this news immediately? This is huge! I don't quite understand it, but there's surely more that needs to be added to the article now, in light of this new material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.171.181 (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Godzilla-movies.com as an External Link?

It's not an official site, and it has (inadvertently, I think, more often than not) posted incorrect information as fact. I think that it shouldn't be used as an external link and will remove it. If any feel that my actions are incorrect, please feel free to restore it and explain why. Thank you 67.42.39.174 (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I must agree. In fact some of their info is obviously fake. I have talked to a person were the fan art of his was posted as official. Also the figure at the bottom I'm pretty sure it is fan made. 71.238.192.77 (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: There is a strange confusion...

99.240.220.135 posted this comment on 10 December 2013 (view all feedback).

There is a strange confusion with the cast members and descriptions. Taylor-Johnson, Cranston, and Olsen all share the same names as characters, but there is a description that Olsen's character is both the daughter of Cranston's character, and the girlfriend of T-J's character??

Any thoughts?

THGhost (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Taylor-Johnson and Cranston's characters are father and son. Olsen's character is Taylor-Johnson's character's wife and therefore takes her husband's surname. The three of them therefore all share the same surname, but not by blood. Taylor-Johnson and Olsen's characters have the same surname because they are husband and wife.

Reader feedback: age rating ???

According to IMDB's parental guide, the movie is rated PG-13.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831387/parentalguide?ref_=tt_stry_pg — Preceding unsigned comment added by THGhost (talk • contribs) 21:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Synopsis from the studio

The synopsis is a quote from the studio, Legendary Pictures. It is from a first-party source that's selling a product, it is promotional material, part of the marketing. It's also unverifiable via third-party sources since the movie hasn't been released. There was a debate about such material being used, over at Talk:R.I.P.D.. I think the studio synopsis should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanteLectro (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

We've seen several opinions on the issue. Previously, there were comments by the co-stars, writers and staff in the space, and others edited it to be the synopsis by the studio. Did WP:FILM come to a consensus? Alaney2k (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

If the synopsis sounds too promotional, then we should paraphrase it neutrally. Per WP:PROMO, "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." Sometimes the synopsis is too vague for successful paraphrasing, in which case I am fine with quoting it directly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

"Spectacular adventure"? Pompous and pretentious. "The world’s most famous monster"? Arguable. I have no problem with the studio's synopsis in intself, but I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia in the context it is currently presented in. There should either be a lead-in, something like: "The studio calls it a ...", so that readers immediately know they're reading a marketing text; or it should be paraphrased, objectively. DanteLectro (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Leave it out. It's promotional material, and if their movie has any kind of "twist" or an ending that puts the whole plot in a different context then they're not going to say that. Disney/Marvel was saying a whole lot of things about Ben Kingsley's character in Iron Man 3 before that film came out, and none of it belonged in an encyclopedia article about the film. I don't see how this could possibly be any different. Ian Suttle (Satoru-kun) (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-free images

I think that this article is using too many non-free images. Since Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, we need to include only if the reader would benefit from a visual aid to critical commentary that exists in the article. For example, with this film soon to be released, the Comic-Con image under "Pre-production" is not a critical element and should be removed. Under "Promotion", we have two non-free images, with one being a sculpture and the other being a magazine cover. I think that at the end of the day, we want to provide an image of this current incarnation of the Godzilla for which there would be critical commentary such as creature design and/or reception to that design. I'm not seeing any such commentary for either image here. Maybe we can move the magazine cover image to the "Creature design" section until we can replace that image with one directly from the film. Thoughts on this? Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Armegon: I started the discussion because of the reverting back and forth of the magazine cover image. What do you think of what I said above? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I may have to agree. If a picture is to be removed, I elect that either the Comic-con image or the principal photography "tank" picture be removed. I believe that the Empire picture and the Godzilla Encounter picture may benefit from critical commentary. The Empire picture may probably be better served on the Creature Design section but I initially added the picture on the promotional section because it came from a magazine. This may have been part of Legendary's marketing campaign to reveal the design on Empire. Armegon (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Creature Size

110m?! How is that even close to accurate? The shortest skyscraper in SF is 492ft. tall, and it clearly dwarfs that in the poster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.206 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• The poster is an artistic rendering and should not be relied upon for scale. In interviews, Edwards has said the monster is about 110m (350 ft) tall. Alaney2k (talk) 15:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree the poster is artistic. Another early poster had Godzilla bigger than the island! In the movie though at one point I believe they state the monsters are over 200ft tall. There does not seem to be any actual statement of height. But you could probably make a good estimate based on Godzilla's height when he is standing next to the bridge. Omega2064 (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I thought that He was 108m (355ft) tall than anything because it stated in many articles that he is 108m, since that it was it says (can't really confirm it completely). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.47.37.131 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Japanese/Hepburn title in lede

Am I the only one who is questioning the logic of this? I understand, the character of Godzilla is Japanese. However, this film was produced entirely in the United States. Japan had no involvement outside of the original character's creation. Personally, I don't see how including a foreign title for an American film makes any sense, at least not in the lede. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you. I can't see any justification for it to be there. See WP:NCFILM#Foreign-language films and WP:FILMLEAD regarding how to deal with foreign language titles, but this is not a foreign language title per se. WP:USEENGLISH. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I would've removed it myself, but I was previously reverted with the reasoning that the lettering was in the logo. Seemed fishy, but I didn't have anything to back up that it didn't belong. Thanks Rob! Corvoe (speak to me) 15:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think to claim that it should be included because the Japanese lettering has been adapted into some kind of logo design is a weak argument. Lots of films, etc., have logos or stylized typefaces, but we don't try and emulate those either. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the film also being distributed in Japan this summer by Toho themselves? That'd mean a Japanese title might be good for the article, since it's probably going to be called "Gojira" in Japan, much like how the 1998, 1984 and 1954 films were. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)--

Dr. Serizawa's first name?

I've changed Watanabe's character name to simply "Dr. Serizawa" in the cast section of the article. The reason for this is due to the fact that there's some sources that claim that Dr. Serizawa's first name is one thing or the other. One source claims that his first name is "Honda" however, an image pulled from the Muto research site suggests that Dr. Serizawa's first name is actually "Ichiro". By this point, Dr. Serizawa's first name is uncertain. I suggest we keep Watanabe's character simply listed as "Dr. Serizawa" until the movie is released. By then, we'll truly know what the character's full name really is. Armegon (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Synposis on GodzillaMovie.com and Soundtrack and track titles on Amazon

If you go to godzillamovie.com and scroll down to story, the first paragraph seems to be the synopsis:

In Summer 2014, the world's most revered monster is reborn as Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures unleash the epic action adventure Godzilla. From visionary new director Gareth Edwards ("Monsters") comes a powerful story of human courage and reconciliation in the face of titanic forces of nature, when the awe-inspiring Godzilla rises to restore balance as humanity stands defenseless.

It seems to be the official one, as it's on the official website and the soundtrack. The soundtrack and its track titles are on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Godzilla-Alexandre-Desplat/dp/B00JHH2140/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1396785111&sr=1-1&keywords=Godzilla.216.249.68.9 (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Premise Removal?

I've taken the liberty of reinstating the premise. It was originally removed under the assumption that, "If the synopsis can't be rewritten in a neutral way, it needs to be left out until the film is released." The only "neutral way" for it to be written is in the way Legendary officially released it. Plain and simple. It is a direct summary taken word for word from the film's official website. There is absolutely no reason why the premise should be removed nor edited in the first place. It should be left alone the way it is, the way Warner Bros. and Legendary wrote and released it. Armegon (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You neglected the key part of my edit summary: "Per WP:SOAP." Said page includes this: "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." So if we take a glance at the premise, I'm going to bold some of the puffery.

"In Summer 2014, the world's most revered monster is reborn as Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures unleash the epic action adventure, "Godzilla". From visionary new director Gareth Edwards ("Monsters") comes a powerful story of human courage and reconciliation in the face of titanic forces of nature, when the awe-inspiring Godzilla rises to restore balance as humanity stands defenseless."

This premise can be reworded, or paraphrased. You don't have to use the direct synopsis. Take the synopsis from the producers and work with it. But if it can't be rewritten to not sound like a promotional page, it simply does not belong on Wikipedia. Corvoe (speak to me) 13:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I see you've also added a hidden message. Where are you getting this information, that the premise has to be a quoted version of the official premise? Corvoe (speak to me) 13:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The passage being displayed without attribution—as if Wikipedia wrote it—is plagiarism and has been removed. Furthermore, even if we did something like, "The official synopsis from the studio says, 'In Summer 2014...'" WP:SOAP still applies. I would have gone ahead and tried to paraphrase the synopsis into something that was not puffery, but it basically boils down to "Humans face Godzilla," which is not informative at all. Unless there is a more detailed synopsis story-wise that we can rewrite in a neutral manner, there is no value in having this section with the available content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I found this synopsis, "An epic rebirth to Toho's iconic Godzilla, this spectacular adventure, from Warner Bros. Pictures and Legendary Pictures, pits the world's most famous monster against malevolent creatures who, bolstered by humanity's scientific arrogance, threaten our very existence." I've gone ahead and included a paraphrasing of this synopsis since it is more story-based than the previous passage. Feel free to modify the words as long as it's kept in a neutral tone. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2014

The current article about the "Godzilla" reboot features a link (footnote #64) to a HitFix article and credits the author as Alan Sepinwall. While Alan is an amazing writer and we at HitFix are proud of him, following the actual link will show that that Drew McWeeny is the author of the article in question, not Sepinwall. 99.59.0.177 (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Alaney2k (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Reception

I removed the statement that the film has received "generally positive reviews". This is based on the score of 87% at Rotten Tomatoes, but it has a score of 59 at Metacritic. Neither of them have that many reviews, though Rotten Tomatoes is simplistic compared to Metacritic in only calling a review positive or negative. Let's not make a summary claim at this point. To look for what journalists are saying about critics and/or reviews, we can Google godzilla "reviews" or godzilla "critics" (quotation marks to force listing plural use, not singular). For what it's worth, there are guidelines at MOS:FILM#Critical response to follow here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is a source that could be used. It says, '"But with Cranston on board and some shiny new technology adding a modern sheen to the franchise, the critics have found something to love with the latest reboot... But with that in mind, it's worth noting that nearly every review is complementary of the film's general aesthetic, yet those same reviews find serious flaws with the plot and characters." Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The reception has definitely been mixed rather than generally positive, there has been a lot of criticism of the length of time that Edwards held off showing Godzilla. Basically it is nice idea, shame about the wait.

Co-signed. The figures quoted indicate mixed rather than positive. The box office gross was generally disappointing too, it came in on the lower end of a blockbuster these days at half a billion. Most studios are looking for a three quarter billion box office at least, if not the billion itself. I've muted the praising in that section and repaired the section gushing about the reception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.203.190 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

distributor

I have reverted an edit removing Toho as a distributor from the infobox. As this has been in place for a number of months - at least - it would be inappropriate to assume that there is not consensus to keep Toho in the infobox. Especially as this film uses a Toho property. Alaney2k (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I feel like you didn't read my edit summary. Take a look at WP:FILMDIST, which I used as my rationale. It reads: "Using the same rationale as the release date, the distributor(s) should be restricted to the country or countries that produced the film and (if different) the country where the film is first released. If there are only two distributors in total (a domestic and foreign) then include both of them." Japan had nothing to do with the production of this film, and while Toho appears to be the only other distributor, it is not an international distributor. Since Warner Bros. is handling both domestic and foreign release of the film, it should be the only one listed. Corvoe (speak to me) 10:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Their is no objection present in the infobox article stating an objection to the basis of the arrangement that WB and Toho have. Toho has participated, although I don't believe they have done any filming. If you have viewed the international trailers for Asia, you can see Toho as well as WB and Legendary before the scenes, so they have participated in the making of those. From what I can verify, it's Toho's property licensed for the film, they worked on the Godzilla design with Rygiel, and held final approval on that, provided the original recordings of Godzilla's roar and they have worked on the marketing in other ways, such as providing a Japanese web site and participating in the Godzilla Encounter exhibit. So I don't think they have been -just- a distributor. As the infobox guidelines allows more than one, you should not object to this arrangement. It's a unique arrangement, and I doubt its being provided reflects negatively on Wikipedia. Alaney2k (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to preface this by saying that I don't appreciate being told what I should and should not object to. I don't want to get hostile, but that portion of your comment definitely rubbed me the wrong way. As for the rest of it, I see your point and am willing to retract my request for Toho's removal. I'd also suggest adding a hidden note behind it so that others like myself don't remove it. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Please accept my apology. Just a clunky choice of words. It often takes me several passes to write out what I mean. I think I can say it better than I can write it. (If you see my comments on other discussion pages, there are plenty of my apologies) I guess, it's one - it's Toho, who participated; two, it's not that many; and three it does not look bad (like overdoing emphasis or something) to have the 'extra' listing. Alaney2k (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology immensely, I realized I also could've said it a little nicer. No hard feelings. Trust me, I re-read and rewrite everything numerous times as well, especially if I'm getting a bit heated. I agree that it was a pretty unnecessary bone to pick, considering it was only one distributor who is extremely notable in the context of the film. Thank you for working through it with me, it's much obliged. Corvoe (speak to me) 21:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Legendary and Warner Brothers or Legendary and Universal? Who has the sequel rights?

I heard someone say that Universal was going to replace Warner Brothers if they make a sequel and I also heard someone say that Warner Brothers has the rights to make a sequel with or without Legendary being involved. I am really confused as to who has the rights to make a sequel. Can somebody clear this up? --99.120.154.125 (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Country

There's been some edit back and forth over the film's country of origin. The film's production companies/studios are Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures, and that's shown on every publications such as Variety ([1], which clearly states "Production: A Warner Bros. release presented with Legendary Pictures of a Legendary Pictures production.") and Screen International ([2], which lists "Production companies: Legendary Pictures, Warner Bros").

I see that the BFI listed Japan as one of its countries along with the United States, but many other sources, such as Screen International only lists United States. I haven't seen any articles or reports that actually mentions the film as a Japanese co-production. The film is however, described as an "American ‘Godzilla’" [3]. Now, if Toho was actually one of the film's production companies, then yes, the film should be listed as a co-production, but I haven't found any source indicates such. Adding Japan as one of its countries would be baseless.--Koresdcine (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I concur. A similar example would be on the article for Slumdog Millionaire. Country of origin should be dictated by the production team(s) origins, not by the nationality of the actors/directors/cultural origin, etc. That would just be nonsensical. Of course there can be exceptions, but I don't see one in this case. --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

As the editor restoring Japan, I have to point you to Template:Infobox film. The parameters portion states this: "For reasons explained below preference is given to reliable databases like BFI, AFI, or Variety." I see that Variety is used in this example, but simply listing the production companies is not the same as listing the countries, like they did for Hanna. However, BFI explicitly states the countries of production as the U.S. and Japan. The "country" parameter is not a list for countries that the companies are based in, but rather for the countries the film was produced in. Reading the standard guidelines, BFI is the most reliable source in this circumstance, as it is the only one (as far as I can tell) that states the countries of production clearly. Koresdcine, since I can't see the Screen International link, does it explicitly state the country of production is only the United States? If that's the case, then per the later portion in the parameters portion, we should "list only the common published nations" and I will quickly support the sole inclusion of the United States in the "country" parameter. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

For the Screen International source, it lists right at the top that the film's country is U.S., and that's the only country that was listed. I noticed that in the case of Variety, unless the film is a non-American production (such as Hanna), it won't list the country/countries at the bottom, but only the production companies (see American Hustle, no country/countries are listed for the film, but only the production companies). However, this Variety article [4] directly states its a "new made-in-America “Godzilla”", and stated "Toho has not yet announced a B.O. target, but given the film’s $93 million weekend opening in the U.S., Toho can probably look forward to strong returns. Its own risk is relatively limited, however, since it is not a production partner on “Godzilla,” a co-production of Legendary Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures." As you can see, Variety specifically stated Toho is not a production partner. I have also yet find any sources that mentions the film as a Japanese co-production that elaborates on the production of the film.--Koresdcine (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I will happily cease adding Japan to the countries of production. It seems that the United States is the only commonly published nation, so we'll stick with that. Thank you for the clarification! Corvoe (speak to me) 02:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Too fat

Various media outlets are reporting that some film goers in Japan said that this version of Godzilla was too fat. See here, here and here for example whilst the creators rebuked it here. Should this get a mention? Simply south ...... time, department skies for just 8 years 20:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting after the KoM 2019 trailer. I can't believe there wasn't much mention of the killer cankles. The lower leg has the musculature and look of a 2-liter bottle with toes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofum (talk • contribs) 01:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Honolulu elevated rail project cameo?

In one scene of the movie, travelers are shown leaving Honolulu Airport (albeit a Honolulu Airport with fictionalized architecture) by elevated train, which made me wonder if this was a reference to the under-construction Honolulu High-Capacity Transit Corridor Project. The train is shut down by the same EMP blast that also blacks out the rest of the city, and turns back on when the kaiju moves away. (For the record, intra-airport transportation at HNL is currently run by the Wiki Wiki Shuttle buses and a walkway.) — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 07:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Is an Analysis section really needed?

The Analysis sections seems a bit odd, as most moves really don't have this section.There is only analysis being presented in the section, and that alone means a full and even handed picture proably isn't being presented. If therir were multiple views and analysis on the picture that's one thing, but as it stands this one view is the only one presented, giving what I feel is farily false or at least loop sided impression on the movie, with only one view being presented, I reallly don't feel a whole sub-section is warrented for what amounts to only one persons view. At most this should just bem mentioned in Critical response section with other responses to film, not given it own section, which also gives the feeling it hold more importance than the other part's of the critical response section.--67.247.140.29 (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I would support such a section with additional viewpoints. I'm pretty sure they are out there and can be incorporated. I did this at Edge of Tomorrow (film) with a "Social commentary" section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It's separate because it is not from a film critic, it is from someone who has written a book on the subject of godzilla. As for multiple viewpoints, I think we can find more, but it may be early yet. Is there a better title? It's not really social commentary, it's scholarly commentary. Alaney2k (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Updated international and worldwide box office gross(until August 17, 2014)

Please update the overall worldwide box office gross of Godzilla(2014) to $518,515,317 as shown in the detailed by date update of International gross from Box Office mojo as of August 17, 2014. Source link is at

The main page of Godzilla(2014) at box office mojo itself shows an outdated international gross number that only counts numbers until August 3, 2014 which totals to($307,500,000) as indicated here:

I have added the overall international gross of Godzilla(2014) from it's 13th and 14th week which totals to $10,408,281 to the 12th Week overall international gross of Godzilla(2014) as shown here: which is at $307, 500, 000. Total International gross of Godzilla(2014) up to August 17 will then be $317,908,281 which when added to it's domestic gross(as of August 20,2014) of $200,607,036 would total to a worldwide gross of $518,515,317.

References

Pupulicious (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Writers

@Armegon: I'm going to transpose my message from Alaney2k's talk page (for the full discussion, click here). This is my rationale for including the uncredited writers in the infobox:

A discussion similar to this (relating to company credits) came up during a disagreement on John Wick focusing on the fact that one of the two directors is uncredited. Digging through conversations on that (I held a similar belief to you, company credits only), I found this discussion which finds consensus to be in favour of whatever is verifiable, if the credits are significant. I'm not going to push this too hard, since I realized the lead includes who did the rewrites, but in general, I think this is something worth looking into on other articles. Just thought I'd let you know what I've discovered lately. Have a good one. Sock (tock talk) 18:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said in that message, I'm not going to fight extremely hard for its inclusion, but I think there's a good rationale for it to be included at the moment. What are your thoughts? Sock (tock talk) 20:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sock:, Seems fair but at the same time, redundant. The reason why I removed it in the first place is because it seemed like an unnecessary (bulky) repeat of the same (summarized) information already covered in the lead's first paragraph. When referencing the contributions of uncredited writers, I believe the best option is to cover & summarize it in the article's lead, "--credited to [writer] but includes contributions from such & such". It seems plain, simple & basic. Not that I'm completely opposed to a note but the note seems a tad bulky compared to the one-sentence summary in the lead, it makes it clear that other writers where involved without giving away much info to turn off readers to even bother looking at the writers section for more information. Armegon (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Protection...Again?!

Should we have a

article? — 2601:183:4000:D5BD:994B:DD53:34AD:81C5 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Reviews

Citing sources that say, in part, "mixed bag", "solid if not smashing", "the best movie of 2014?", various editors have summarized the various summaries (um...yeah) as being "positive", "mostly positive", "mixed to positive", "mixed" and probably a dozen others that I haven't seen.

The sources do not say any of those things. That various editors have differing opinions as to how to combine the statements of various sources to say something that none of them say is a clear sign that we are looking at synthesis.

After that bit of synthesis, we have examples where we say what the sources say: the score at RT, the score at MC, the summary at MC, etc. Those are verifiable.

If you feel it is clear and obvious that these indicate positive/mostly positive/mixed to positive/mixed/whatever your summary does not add anything that readers would not already understand (should we say "George Washington was a human with arms, legs, a head..."?). If the sources do not obviously say positive/mostly positive/mixed to positive/mixed/whatever, you are adding your own interpretation. Neither of these is appropriate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the report from screen rant literally says this, "Some early audience reactions suggested that the film takes its time in revealing the big attraction, but were overall mostly positive. We now have an early batch of critics’ reviews, and the overall consensus is decidedly mixed." That's why I felt it was appropriate to say the film received a mixed to positive reaction given that this report supports that claim. Armegon (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like it received a "mixed" reaction. There's no "mixed to positive" anywhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes but there are other sources that also say the film received a more positive reaction than negative, A source here from the LA Times had gathered a variety of reviews which were positive for the majority and the article literally stated "critics agree that the new "Godzilla" is a solid monster movie that honors its history — and that, yes, it's better than the 1998 version." Another source that gathered reviews, you can see here, literally stated "Though there are more positive reviews than negative, opinions vary greatly and some were definitely not fans of the film." It does seem to paint a mixed to positive reaction, doesn't it? Armegon (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

That's synthesis, though. You can't fudge separate sources together like that. If sources differ, in-text attribution needs to be used to indicate who said what. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a point there. What if we simply leave it that the film "received positive reviews"? No mostly, no generally, no mixed, nothing more or less. Some of those sources do indeed use the word positive when describing the consensus of the gathered reviews. Thoughts? Armegon (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, what if we just leave it the way it is now and let the sources speak for themselves? Armegon (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no synthesis in letting sources speak for themselves. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

So we are in agreement? Armegon (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it is mixed to somewhat positive, but not an unqualified positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.62.111 (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Godzilla (2014) is a horror movie

After all, it is a remake of one. --24.184.132.160 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, but you need a reference Zalooka4 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. Godzilla 2014 is a reboot. A remake is a new film that's redoing the same story, with the same characters, same scenario, but different direction. Godzilla 2014 is not a remake and Legendary has not confirmed or identified the film as a remake, they have officially confirmed it as a reboot, confirmed here by producer Brian Rogers and even referenced as a reboot here and here by other sources. To say that Godzilla 2014 is a horror movie because "it is a remake of 1954" is not a solid argument because it's wrong and full of holes. Godzilla 2014 is a separate entity independent from 1954 set in its own timeline, it has absolutely no connection to 1954 in any way to actually identify 2014 as a direct remake of 1954. There were no MUTO's in 1954, there was no Ford or Joe Brody in 1954, and there's certainly no Oxygen Destroyer in 2014. You're trying to connect dots that are not related to each other in order to imply a conclusion. That's original research and it goes against wiki's guidelines. Lastly, if you believe Godzilla 2014 is a horror movie in any way, then you must provide a reliable source that supports your claim. Not an external google search link, like you've done here. Armegon (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

It is a remake because it is supposed to be a retelling/another version of the Godzilla story. That's pretty much what a reboot is. It also fits the description of a natural horror film. It's also listed as a "thriller" which is usually a sub-genre of horror --24.184.132.160 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

But 2014 is not specifically a remake of 1954. It's not remaking the same story, characters, scenario, etc. Yes, 2014 is telling a new version of Godzilla and that is called a reimagining, not a remake. If 2014 were a remake, the movie would have been set in Japan during 1954 and featured the same characters from the 54 film like Ogata, Emiko, Dr. Yamane, & the Oxygen Destroyer, but it doesn't, because 2014 is not a remake. Reboot, reimagining and remake are three different words with different definitions, what you're trying to pass off as a remake is actually a reimagining. And I refer you back to the sources I provided that officially identify 2014 as a reboot and not a remake. Lastly, if you feel 2014 "fits the description of natural horror", then you need to provide a reliable source that supports that claim. Armegon (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Positive??

What's with the nonsense now that only states it was received positively? As far as I know a 6 is not straight up "positive", and I don't see its oft-quoted focus on American audiences and inclusion of patriotism mentioned anywhere either. You'd think things like this would be easy to find [5]. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

See the section above titled #Reviews for a previous discussion on this. The reviews do show that reception was mostly positive. clpo13_(talk) 23:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

That section concludes that it was mostly mixed, not uncontroversially positive. The article now only gives it as positive. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem is that -your- pov is not represented in the article. I think that 6/10 is a positive average. The article doesn't state that it was the world's greatest. I don't see any slant on the article. I would use the words mostly positive myself, but saying it received positive reviews is true. I don't think the article is slanted. Alaney2k (talk) 13:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Alaney2k, it seems the movie was negatively received in your eyes, Prinsgezinde. Five sources have been provided in the Critical reception section to support the "positive reviews" statement. Only one of those sources states that the reception was "decidedly mixed" but even then, that same source also concludes that the film's reception was "overall mostly positive". Rotten Tomatoes even has it at a 74% certified fresh rating, which is technically a positive rating. Rotten tomatoes has collected 286 reviews and out of all of those, 75 were negative and 211 were positive. It's safe to say that the film did indeed receive positive reviews. This shouldn't even be disputed because like I said, five sources have been provided that support the positive reviews claim. Armegon (talk) 20:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Godzilla (2014 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118029721?refCatId=13
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121118060109/http://www.imax.com:80/community/blog/imax-and-warner-bros-partner-to-bring-20-new-pictures-to-imax-theatres/ to http://www.imax.com/community/blog/imax-and-warner-bros-partner-to-bring-20-new-pictures-to-imax-theatres/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.movieweb.com/news/godzilla-blu-ray-and-dvd-releases-september-16th

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

??

How can I make a separate page for the movie Godzilla: King of Monsters? Tristar72 (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I wouldn't. I wouldn't start an article on a film that, from what I understand, hasn't started filming yet. Most likely, it will be deleted to redirected. I would wait until it becomes clear that production has started. But if you really think there's enough information on it to warrant an entirely new article, this page will show you the basics. Friginator (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• GODZILLA The Game - PS4 Gameplay Trailer - Goji v Goji 3.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)